Controversial Chip & Poker Opinions (32 Viewers)

[Rieguy]

Relabled chips via Gear are one of the few instances where pictures posted on PCF do them little justice. With the up-close shots you can more noticably sometimes see gaps and the cross-hatching 'issues', but I've found in person they're hardly noticeable or much of a problem at all. Yes, unmolested chips/inlays are almost always going to look better in 99% of situations, but they are a great alternative in the right set/lineup. That last part matters more than anything really. Shit chip selection with shit inlays make the decision to murder certain chips that much more egregious.

 

[BarrieJ3]

do you even chip? i wish i couldnt tell the difference.

#notachipper

I dont even know that ive handled too many of the custom version in play? I’ve played with cpcs, but rarely relabels and such so idk.

plus I don’t really care to inspect my stacks (and question if anyone actually does). I’ve never once been at a game where anyone, chippers included, care or say anything about chips beyond the 5 minute preamble of cjing (maybe the passing comments of “these shuffle so well” or such).

 

[BarrieJ3]

Shit chip selection with shit inlays make the decision to murder certain chips that much more egregious.

This is how I feel about every single rat rod set and all the people bogarting hotstamps to shove them together in gross amalgams.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Interesting thought. I have seen the gear cross hatching stuff, and thought the texture was cool. I’ve felt similar on casino chips/paulsons.

I didn’t and still don’t know the difference, could likely easily tell the difference in person, but I did assume there was not one type regarding Paulsons. I figured they’d have various label types available at any time and changes throughout the many years. Hence my surprise that Gears would “stick out” so much.

The interesting thought part is that if Paulson labels had Gears hatching and Gear Paulson’s, which would be preferred?

Meaning, is Paulsons label surface preferred because it’s better looking/feeling, or just because it’s “Paulson’s”?

I’d hope/think it’s the second, because Gear has the (I’d imagine) ability to be nimble and ensure his, if not exactly replicating, would at least outperform Paulson’s.

 

[upNdown]

Interesting thought. I have seen the gear cross hatching stuff, and thought the texture was cool. I’ve felt similar on casino chips/paulsons.

I didn’t and still don’t know the difference, could likely easily tell the difference in person, but I did assume there was not one type regarding Paulsons. I figured they’d have various label types available at any time and changes throughout the many years. Hence my surprise that Gears would “stick out” so much.

The interesting thought part is that if Paulson labels had Gears hatching and Gear Paulson’s, which would be preferred?

Meaning, is Paulsons label surface preferred because it’s better looking/feeling, or just because it’s “Paulson’s”?
into clay
I’d hope/think it’s the second, because Gear has the (I’d imagine) ability to be nimble and ensure his, if not exactly replicating, would at least outperform Paulson’s.

I dunno. But let's not forget that we're talking about two different things. The texture on a paulson inlay is the result of smooth inlay materials being pressed into clay by a cup/mold that is textured. And so you end up with one textured surface that goes seamlessly from clay to inlay to clay. Of course contemporary paulsons aren't produced like that for security/technology reasons - the mold (and thus the resulting chip) is textured on most of the clay parts, but smooth on the inlay part.)
When you replace an inlay with a textured label, the texture of the label will never match the texture of the surrounding clay. So whether one texture is better than the other isn't necessarily the point; you'll never have a seemless surface nor matching textures on you label and your clay.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I dunno. But let's not forget that we're talking about two different things. The texture on a paulson inlay is the result of smooth inlay materials being pressed into clay by a cup/mold that is textured. And so you end up with one textured surface that goes seamlessly from clay to inlay to clay. Of course contemporary paulsons aren't produced like that for security/technology reasons - the mold (and thus the resulting chip) is textured on most of the clay parts, but smooth on the inlay part.)
When you replace an inlay with a textured label, the texture of the label will never match the texture of the surrounding clay. So whether one texture is better than the other isn't necessarily the point; you'll never have a seemless surface nor matching textures on you label and your clay.

Well aren’t you just making all the sense today.

That pretty much fully answers all the questions.

 

[doublebooyah85]

I’m not a fan of trying to match textured inlays as well. Did it in one set and wouldn’t do it again.

 

[upNdown]

, but I did assume there was not one type regarding Paulsons

This is correct. Here is a suits mold, a THC and an RHC - you can see how the textures are different. And I'm pretty sure there are differences between scv an lcv too. But for the leaded, inlaid house molds and THC's that I've used, the textures all seem similar and easily distinguished from a textured label.